Propositional Logic: Syntax
|
|
- Opal Harrison
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 4 Propositional Logic: Syntax Reading: Metalogic Part II, Contents 4.1 The System PS: Syntax Axioms and Rules of Inference Definitions Further results about Sample Derivations The Deduction Theorem Theorems Into Prooofs The Deduction Theorem A System of Natural Deduction Establishing the Rules Introduction and Elimination Rules Establishing Our Axioms Homework Exercises Questions Answers The System PS: Syntax Axioms and Rules of Inference The system PS is a Hilbert Style Axiom System for propositional logic. Hunter has three axioms: PS1 A (B A) PS2 (A (B C)) ((A B) (A C)) PS3 ( A B) (B A) In addition, Hunter has one Rule of Inference, Modus Ponens: 1 1 We might have expressed Modus Ponens as follows:
2 50 4 Propositional Logic: Syntax MP If A and B are any formulas of P, then B is an immediate consequence in PS of the pair of formulas A and (A B). Hunter presents his axioms as axiom schemata: A, B, C are not part of the language of P; they are part of the metalanguage. A and B can be any wffs of P, whether propositional symbols or complex wffs. Each of the following is an instance of the first axiom schema: (p (p p )) (p ((p p ) p )) ( p ((p (p p )) p )) If, instead of axiom schemata, Hunter had presented his axioms as wffs of P, then he would have had to introduce a second rule of inference that would allow us to substitute wffs for the propositional symbols in the axioms Definitions Definition (Derivation) A sequence of wffs of P, < c 1,..., c n > constitutes a derivation in PS of a wff A from a set Γ of wffs of P if (i) c n = A (ii) for all i, 1 i n, either c i is an axiom of PS there exist j, k < i such that c i is an immediate consequence of c j and c k c i is one of the Γ When we are working out derivations, we will also allow a c i to be a previously proven theorem, or the result of operating on lines < i by a previously proven rule of inference. Strictly speaking, we do not need to include this in our formal definition because any such derivation could be inserted into the current derivation. When Γ = Φ, the derivation is said to be a proof. A, (A B) PS B 2 That is, Hunter s axioms would be PS1 p (p p) PS2 (p (p p )) ((p p ) (p p )) PS3 ( p p ) (p p) The rules are Modus Ponens: A, (A B) PS B and Substitution: Where C is a propositional symbol occurring in A and A 1 is any wff If PS A then PS A A 1 C Note that even with a substitution rule, we require metalinguistic variables to express rules of inference. (Why?)
3 4.1 The System PS: Syntax 51 Definition (Syntactic Consequence) A wff A is a Syntactic Consequence in PS of a set of wffs Γ iff there is a derivation in PS of A from the set Γ. We use Γ PS A to express that A is a syntactic consequence of the set Γ in PS. Definition (Theorem) A wff A is a Theorem of PS iff there is some proof in PS whose last wff is. Since a proof is a derivation in which Γ = Φ, we can express that A is a theorem of PS by saying that it is a syntactic consequence of the empty set, i.e., Φ PS A But it is more usual to write just PS A Definition (Proof-Theoretically Consistent) A set Γ of wffs of P is a Proof-Theoretically Consistent Set of PS iff for no wff A of P is it the case that both Γ PS A and Γ PS A. Definition (Proof-Theoretically Inconsistent) A set Γ of wffs of P is a Proof-Theoretically Inconsistent Set of PS iff for some wff A of P, both Γ PS A and Γ PS A Further results about Proposition 21 For every wff A, A PS A Every wff is a syntactic consequence of itself. One need only consider the derivation sequence consisting of the single wff A as first and last element. Proposition 22 For every wff A, if Γ PS A, then Γ PS A. That is, if A is a derivable from the set Γ, then we can add any additional assumptions to the set Γ, and A will still be derivable. The proof is straightforward. Since each c i in the derivation is either an axiom, the result of using MP on two previous lines, or one of the wffs in Γ, and since Γ Γ, each c i will be either an axiom, the result of using MP on two previous lines, or one of the wffs in Γ. As a corollary, we have Proposition 23 For every wff A, if PS A, then Γ PS A The transitivity of is given by: Proposition 24 If Γ PS A and A PS B, then Γ PS B. Then, as a result of Modus Ponens: Proposition 25 If Γ PS A and Γ PS A B, then Γ PS B
4 52 4 Propositional Logic: Syntax Sample Derivations Here are some examples of derivations in the system PS. Exercise Prove: PS (p p) 1. (p ((p p) p)) PS1 2. ((p ((p p) p)) ((p (p p)) (p p))) PS2 3. ((p (p p)) (p p)) MP,1, 2 4. (p (p p)) PS1 5. (p p) MP,3,4 Don t let the fact that a particular wff (p p) is proved hide the generality of the result. Of course, the proof just given is not a proof of (p p ), because this wff contains different symbols from the ones in the proof. On the other hand, it is easily seen how we could construct a proof for this wff modeled on the one we gave. Similarly, we could construct a proof for any wff having the form A A. 3 For example, we can easily construct a proof of the wff (( p p ) ( p p )) by substituting ( p p ) for p in Ex When we refer back to previous exercises to sanction a particular line in a derivation, we will indicate the substitution necessary for constructing a derivation of the wff needed to sanction this particular line. Exercise Prove: PS ( p (p p)) 1. (p p) Ex ((p p) ( p (p p))) PS1 3. ( p (p p)) MP, 1,2 The reference to Ex. 1 in this proof can be removed, as we remarked earlier, by simply adding the proof of (p p) to the beginning of this one, to get 1. (p ((p p) p)) PS1 2. ((p ((p p) p)) ((p (p p)) (p p))) PS2 3. ((p (p p)) (p p)) MP,1, 2 4. (p (p p)) PS1 5. (p p) MP,3,4 6. ((p p) ( p (p p))) PS1 7. ( p (p p)) MP, 5,6 And this constitutes a proof in the strict definition we gave earlier. Exercise Prove: (p p ), (p p ) PS (p p ) 3 In fact, Hunter sometimes states his derivations using metalinguistic letters. The metalinguistc way of stating them is, in fact, preferable for our purposes.
5 4.1 The System PS: Syntax (p p ) Hyp. 2. (p p ) Hyp. 3. ((p p ) (p (p p ))) PS1 4. ((p (p p )) ((p p ) (p p ))) PS2 5. (p (p p )) MP, 3,4 6. ((p p ) (p p )) MP, 4,5 7. (p p ) MP, 1,6 Exercise Prove: PS (( p (p p )) 1. (( p p) (p p )) PS3 2. ( p ( p p)) PS1 3. ( p (p p )) Ex 1.3 p,( p p),(p p ) p,p,p, 1,2 Here, again, we can remove the reference to Ex. 1.3, by adding the derivation of Ex. 1.3 to this derivation with the substitutions that are indicated. The two hypotheses in Ex. 1.3 will be replaced by the first two lines of this derivation, each of which is an instance of an axiom schema, so we end up with a proof, and not just a derivation. 1. (( p p) (p p )) PS3 2. ( p ( p p)) PS1 3. (((p p ) (p p )) ( p ((p p ) (p p )))) PS1 4. (( p ((p p ) (p p ))) (( p (p p )) ( p (p p )))) PS2 5. ( p ((p p ) (p p ))) MP, 3,4 6. (( p (p p )) ( p (p p ))) MP, 4,5 7. ( p (p p )) MP, 1,6 We have now a proof of ( p (p p )) that satisfies the strict definition given earlier. Exercise Prove: (p (p p )) PS (p (p p )) 1. p (p p ) Hyp 2. (p (p p )) ((p p ) (p p )) PS2 3. (p p ) (p p ) MP,1,2 4. p (p p ) PS1 5. p (p p ) Ex. 1.3 p,(p p ),(p p ) p,p,p,3,4 Exercise Prove: ( p p) PS p
6 54 4 Propositional Logic: Syntax 1. ( p p) Hyp 2. ( p ( ( p p) p)) PS1 3. (( ( p p) p) (p ( p p))) PS3 4. ( p (p ( p p))) Ex. 1.3, 2,3 5. (( p (p ( p p))) (( p p) ( p ( p p)))) PS2 6. (( p p) ( p ( p p))) MP, 4,5 7. (( p ( p p)) (( p p) p)) PS3 8. (( p p) (( p p) p)) Ex. 1.3, 6,7 9. (( p) p) p MP 1,8 10. p MP 1,9 The substitution in step 4 is as follows: Ex. 1.3 p,( ( p p) p),(p ( p p)) p,p,p The substitution in step 8 is as follows: Ex. 1.3 ( p p),( p ( p p)),(( p p) p) p,p,p Exercise Prove: ( p p), ( p p) PS p 1. ( p p) Hyp 2. ( p p) Hyp 3. (( p p) (p p )) PS3 4. (p p ) MP 1,3 5. ( p p ) Ex. 1.3 p,p,p p,p,p, 2,4 6. p Ex. 1.6 p p 4.2 The Deduction Theorem Theorems Into Prooofs Exercise 1.6 says that if we assume ( p p), we can derive p. This is very closely related to the conditional, If ( p p) then p. It would seem that we should be able to transform this derivation, which is based on an assumption, into a proof of a conditional, whose antecedent is the former assumption. As a matter of fact, we can! Exercise Prove: PS ( p p) p
7 4.2 The Deduction Theorem ( p ( ( p p) p)) PS1 2. (( ( p p) p) (p ( p p))) PS3 3. ( p (p ( p p))) Ex 1.3, 1,2 4. (( p (p ( p p))) (( p p) ( p ( p p)))) PS2 5. (( p p) ( p ( p p))) MP, 3,4 6. (( p ( p p)) (( p p) p)) PS3 7. (( p p) (( p p) p)) Ex 1.3, 5,6 8. ((( p p) (( p p) p)) ((( p p) ( p p)) (( p p) p))) PS2 9. ((( p p) ( p p)) (( p p) p)) MP 7,8 10. (( p p) ( p p)) Ex (( p p) p) MP 9,10 We can do the same for Exercise 1.3: Exercise Prove: PS ((p p ) ((p p ) (p p ))) 1. ((p (p p )) ((p p ) (p p ))) PS2 2. (((p (p p )) ((p p ) (p p ))) ((p p ) ((p (p p )) ((p p ) (p p )))) PS1 3. ((p p ) ((p (p p )) ((p p ) (p p )))) MP, 1,2 4. (((p p ) ((p (p p )) ((p p ) (p p )))) (((p p ) (p (p p ))) ((p p ) ((p p ) (p p ))))) PS2 5. (((p p ) (p (p p ))) ((p p ) ((p p ) (p p )))) MP, 3,4 6. ((p p ) (p (p p ))) PS1 7. ((p p ) ((p p ) (p p ))) MP 5,6 8. (((p p ) ((p p ) (p p ))) ((p p ) (p p )) ((p p ) (p p )))) PS2 9. (((p p ) (p p )) ((p p ) (p p ))) MP 7,8 10. ((((p p ) (p p )) ((p p ) (p p ))) ((p p ) (((p p ) (p p )) ((p p ) (p p ))))) PS1 11. ((p p ) (((p p ) (p p )) ((p p ) (p p )))) MP (((p p ) (((p p ) (p p )) ((p p ) (p p )))) (((p p ) ((p p ) (p p ))) ((p p ) ((p p ) (p p ))))) PS2 13. (((p p ) ((p p ) (p p ))) ((p p ) ((p p ) (p p ))))) MP 11, ((p p ) ((p p ) (p p ))) PS1 15. ((p p ) ((p p ) (p p ))) MP 13,14 We leave it as an exercise for the reader to establish the analogue to Exercise 1.5, Exercise PS ((p (p p )) (p (p p ))) The Deduction Theorem Can we transform all such derivations into proofs? The answer is that we can. At least that is the result of The Deduction Theorem. The Deduction
8 56 4 Propositional Logic: Syntax Theorem is one of those obvious results that make one s life easier. It is stated thus Claim. Suppose Γ is a set of wffs, and A and B are each wffs. If Γ, A PS B then Γ PS A B. The Deduction Theorem is the theoretical underpinning that allows us to use Conditional Proof. For, it tells us that if we can derive a formula B on the assumption A, then we can derive If A then B. So, we have the strategy that to prove a conditional, assume the antecedent and derive the consequent. The Deduction Theorem is, more generally, the basis for the formation of a natural deduction system. Our proof of the Deduction Theorem is by induction on the length of the proof of B. That is, we shall show how to turn a proof of B on the assumption A into a proof of A B. Proof Let B 1,..., B n be a derivation of B from Γ and A, where B = B n. We will prove by induction on the length of the derivation that Γ A B. Basis Step B = B 1. Then B must be either an axiom, or it must be A, or it must be one of the wffs in Γ. Case 1a B is an axiom. By axiom (PS1), B (A B). So, we have the following proof of A B: (i) B B is an axiom (ii) B (A B) Axiom (PS1) (iii) A B Modus Ponens, 1,2 Case 1b B is one of the Γ. The case is the same as the previous one. Case 1c B is A. Then A B is just A A, and we have already shown that A A. Induction Step Assume the theorem for all k < n; we show it holds for n. The only interesting case is where B n follows by Modus Ponens from two earlier lines. So, Suppose there are j, m < n such that B m = B j B n By the induction hypothesis, we can add on to the proof, the following two lines A B j A (B j B n ) To this we append (A (B j B n )) ((A B j ) (A B n )) as an instance of axiom (PS2). Then, two applications of Modus Ponens gives us the desired result A B n
9 4.3 A System of Natural Deduction Establishing the Rules 4.3 A System of Natural Deduction 57 We will suppose that we have the full complement of truth functional connectives,,,,, and that they are defined in the usual way in terms of and. We will, in this section, establish only the rule of Indirect Proof; we will leave it as an exercise for the reader to establish the rest. Proposition 26 If Γ, A PS B B, then Γ PS A. For simplicity of argument, instead of B B, we will use (B B). By the Deduction Theorem, if then By PS3, So, by Modus Ponens, we get Γ, A PS (B B), Γ PS A (B B). PS ( A (B B)) ((B B) A). And since, as we have already proved Γ PS (B B) A PS B B Another application of Modus Ponens gets us Γ PS A Introduction and Elimination Rules Once we have established the Deduction Theorem, we can introduce a set of Introduction and Elimination Rules, or Intelim Rules for propositional logic. The idea is to have a rule for introducing a connective into a line of a derivation (i.e., the introduction rule) and a rule for breaking into a complex wff and writing down one of the constituents (i.e., the elimination rule). There are two such rules for each connective:
10 58 4 Propositional Logic: Syntax NEGATION Double Negation Introduction A PS A Indirect Proof If Γ, A PS B B then Γ PS A CONJUNCTION Principle of Conjunction A, B PS A B Simplification A B PS A A B PS B DISJUNCTION Addition A PS A B B PS A B Disjunctive Syllogism A B, A PS B A B, B PS A CONDITIONAL Conditional Proof If Γ, A PS B, then Γ PS A B Modus Ponens A, A B PS B BICONDITIONAL Principle of the Biconditional A B, B A PS A B Modus Ponens of the Biconditional A, A B PS B We will record our derivations Fitch-style, numbering each step and recording the reason to the right. We will start every such derivation by drawing a vertical line down the left hand margin. We will introduce a new vertical lines to the right of the original one each time a hypothesis is introduced; and we will eliminate a vertical line each time a hypothesis is discharged by either CP or IP, as in the following examples. For CP: A Hyp B A B CP And for IP, similarly:
11 A Hyp B B A IP 4.3 A System of Natural Deduction 59 The left-most line of a derivation is called the main line of the argument. Any vertical line to the right of the main line is a subordinate line of the argument. Let us lay down, first, that two steps in a derivation belong to the same line of the argument if and only if exactly the same vertical lines pass by both of them, and second, that one step in a derivation S belongs to a line of argument subordinate to that of another step W if and only if (a) every vertical line which passes to the left of W also passes to the left of S and (b) at least one additional vertical line passes to the left of S and not W. Then we can add the Rule of Reiteration: Reiteration: Any step in a derivation can be reiterated on a step below it that belongs either to the same line of argument or to a line of argument subordinate to it. A derivation is complete when the last step is on the main line of the argument Establishing Our Axioms We just want to show that each of the axioms of Hunter s system PS is derivable using our Intelim Rules. So, we need to prove each of PS1-PS3. Proposition 27 PS A (B A) 1. A Hyp 2. B Hyp 3. A R, 1 4. B A CP, A (B A) CP, 1-4 Proposition 28 PS (A (B C)) ((A B) (A C)) 1. A (B C) Hyp 2. A B Hyp 3. A Hyp 4. B C MP 1,3 5. B MP 2,3 6. C MP 4,5
12 60 4 Propositional Logic: Syntax 7. A C CP (A B) (A C) CP (A (B C)) (A B) (A C) CP 1-8 Proposition 29 PS ( B A) (A B) 1. B A Hyp 2. A Hyp 3. B Hyp 4. A MP 1,3 5. A R 2 6. B IP 3,4,5 7. A B CP ( B A) (A B) CP Homework Exercises Questions 4.1. Use mathematical induction to show that the set {, } is inadequate to define all the truth functional connectives. (Hunter, 21.7) 4.2. Construct derivations in PS for the following: (i) (p p ), (p p ) PS (p p ) (ii) (p (p p )) PS (p (p p )) (iii) (( p p ) (( p p ) p ) 4.3. Do Exercise 2.3.
Section 1.2: Propositional Logic
Section 1.2: Propositional Logic January 17, 2017 Abstract Now we re going to use the tools of formal logic to reach logical conclusions ( prove theorems ) based on wffs formed by some given statements.
More information02 Propositional Logic
SE 2F03 Fall 2005 02 Propositional Logic Instructor: W. M. Farmer Revised: 25 September 2005 1 What is Propositional Logic? Propositional logic is the study of the truth or falsehood of propositions or
More informationLogic for Computer Science - Week 4 Natural Deduction
Logic for Computer Science - Week 4 Natural Deduction 1 Introduction In the previous lecture we have discussed some important notions about the semantics of propositional logic. 1. the truth value of a
More informationNatural Deduction is a method for deriving the conclusion of valid arguments expressed in the symbolism of propositional logic.
Natural Deduction is a method for deriving the conclusion of valid arguments expressed in the symbolism of propositional logic. The method consists of using sets of Rules of Inference (valid argument forms)
More informationPropositional Logic Review
Propositional Logic Review UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane The task of describing a logical system comes in three parts: Grammar Describing what counts as a formula Semantics Defining
More informationToday s Lecture 2/25/10. Truth Tables Continued Introduction to Proofs (the implicational rules of inference)
Today s Lecture 2/25/10 Truth Tables Continued Introduction to Proofs (the implicational rules of inference) Announcements Homework: -- Ex 7.3 pg. 320 Part B (2-20 Even). --Read chapter 8.1 pgs. 345-361.
More informationIntroduction to Metalogic
Philosophy 135 Spring 2008 Tony Martin Introduction to Metalogic 1 The semantics of sentential logic. The language L of sentential logic. Symbols of L: Remarks: (i) sentence letters p 0, p 1, p 2,... (ii)
More informationManual of Logical Style
Manual of Logical Style Dr. Holmes January 9, 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Conjunction 3 2.1 Proving a conjunction...................... 3 2.2 Using a conjunction........................ 3 3 Implication
More informationIn this chapter, we specify a deductive apparatus for PL.
Handout 5 PL Derivations In this chapter, we specify a deductive apparatus for PL Definition deductive apparatus A deductive apparatus for PL is a set of rules of inference (or derivation rules) that determine
More informationModule 5 K and Equivalent Systems
Module 5 K and Equivalent Systems G. J. Mattey July 8, 2010 Contents 1 The Semantical System KI 2 1.1 Specification of KI....................................... 2 1.2 Semantical Properties and Relations
More informationcis32-ai lecture # 18 mon-3-apr-2006
cis32-ai lecture # 18 mon-3-apr-2006 today s topics: propositional logic cis32-spring2006-sklar-lec18 1 Introduction Weak (search-based) problem-solving does not scale to real problems. To succeed, problem
More information2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary. Aaron Tan August 2017
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary Aaron Tan 21 25 August 2017 1 2. The Logic of Compound Statements 2.1 Logical Form and Logical Equivalence Statements; Compound Statements; Statement Form (Propositional
More informationMarie Duží
Marie Duží marie.duzi@vsb.cz 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: 1. a language 2. a set of axioms 3. a set of deduction rules ad 1. The definition of a language
More informationPřednáška 12. Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu. 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1
Přednáška 12 Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: A. a language B. a set of axioms C. a set of
More informationDeductive Systems. Lecture - 3
Deductive Systems Lecture - 3 Axiomatic System Axiomatic System (AS) for PL AS is based on the set of only three axioms and one rule of deduction. It is minimal in structure but as powerful as the truth
More informationCHAPTER 1 - LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS
CHAPTER 1 - LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS 1.1 - Logical Form and Logical Equivalence Definition. A statement or proposition is a sentence that is either true or false, but not both. ex. 1 + 2 = 3 IS a statement
More information10/5/2012. Logic? What is logic? Propositional Logic. Propositional Logic (Rosen, Chapter ) Logic is a truth-preserving system of inference
Logic? Propositional Logic (Rosen, Chapter 1.1 1.3) TOPICS Propositional Logic Truth Tables Implication Logical Proofs 10/1/12 CS160 Fall Semester 2012 2 What is logic? Logic is a truth-preserving system
More informationPropositional Logics and their Algebraic Equivalents
Propositional Logics and their Algebraic Equivalents Kyle Brooks April 18, 2012 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Formal Logic Systems 1 2.1 Consequence Relations......................... 2 3 Propositional Logic
More information3 The Semantics of the Propositional Calculus
3 The Semantics of the Propositional Calculus 1. Interpretations Formulas of the propositional calculus express statement forms. In chapter two, we gave informal descriptions of the meanings of the logical
More informationPropositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0
Propositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0 Outline Syntax of Propositional Formulas Motivating Proofs Syntactic Entailment and Proofs Proof Rules for Natural Deduction Axioms, theories and theorems
More informationManual of Logical Style (fresh version 2018)
Manual of Logical Style (fresh version 2018) Randall Holmes 9/5/2018 1 Introduction This is a fresh version of a document I have been working on with my classes at various levels for years. The idea that
More informationSystems of modal logic
499 Modal and Temporal Logic Systems of modal logic Marek Sergot Department of Computing Imperial College, London utumn 2008 Further reading: B.F. Chellas, Modal logic: an introduction. Cambridge University
More informationPropositional Calculus - Hilbert system H Moonzoo Kim CS Division of EECS Dept. KAIST
Propositional Calculus - Hilbert system H Moonzoo Kim CS Division of EECS Dept. KAIST moonzoo@cs.kaist.ac.kr http://pswlab.kaist.ac.kr/courses/cs402-07 1 Review Goal of logic To check whether given a formula
More informationCSCI.6962/4962 Software Verification Fundamental Proof Methods in Computer Science (Arkoudas and Musser) Chapter p. 1/33
CSCI.6962/4962 Software Verification Fundamental Proof Methods in Computer Science (Arkoudas and Musser) Chapter 4.1-4.8 p. 1/33 CSCI.6962/4962 Software Verification Fundamental Proof Methods in Computer
More informationPropositional Logic Arguments (5A) Young W. Lim 10/11/16
Propositional Logic (5A) Young W. Lim Copyright (c) 2016 Young W. Lim. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
More informationLecture Notes on Combinatory Modal Logic
Lecture Notes on Combinatory Modal Logic 15-816: Modal Logic Frank Pfenning Lecture 9 February 16, 2010 1 Introduction The connection between proofs and program so far has been through a proof term assignment
More informationPropositional Logic: Models and Proofs
Propositional Logic: Models and Proofs C. R. Ramakrishnan CSE 505 1 Syntax 2 Model Theory 3 Proof Theory and Resolution Compiled at 11:51 on 2016/11/02 Computing with Logic Propositional Logic CSE 505
More informationFormal (natural) deduction in propositional logic
Formal (natural) deduction in propositional logic Lila Kari University of Waterloo Formal (natural) deduction in propositional logic CS245, Logic and Computation 1 / 67 I know what you re thinking about,
More informationLanguage of Propositional Logic
Logic A logic has: 1. An alphabet that contains all the symbols of the language of the logic. 2. A syntax giving the rules that define the well formed expressions of the language of the logic (often called
More informationPropositional natural deduction
Propositional natural deduction COMP2600 / COMP6260 Dirk Pattinson Australian National University Semester 2, 2016 Major proof techniques 1 / 25 Three major styles of proof in logic and mathematics Model
More informationKRIPKE S THEORY OF TRUTH 1. INTRODUCTION
KRIPKE S THEORY OF TRUTH RICHARD G HECK, JR 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this note is to give a simple, easily accessible proof of the existence of the minimal fixed point, and of various maximal fixed
More informationAxiom Systems For Classical Sentential Logic
8 Axiom Systems For Classical Sentential Logic 1. Introduction...2 2. Axiom System AS1...2 3. Examples of Derivations in System AS1...3 4. Other Axiom Systems for CSL...6 2 Hardegree, MetaLogic 1. Introduction
More informationCHAPTER 10. Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic
CHAPTER 10 Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. By humans, not mentioning
More information15414/614 Optional Lecture 1: Propositional Logic
15414/614 Optional Lecture 1: Propositional Logic Qinsi Wang Logic is the study of information encoded in the form of logical sentences. We use the language of Logic to state observations, to define concepts,
More informationMathematics 114L Spring 2018 D.A. Martin. Mathematical Logic
Mathematics 114L Spring 2018 D.A. Martin Mathematical Logic 1 First-Order Languages. Symbols. All first-order languages we consider will have the following symbols: (i) variables v 1, v 2, v 3,... ; (ii)
More informationThe Importance of Being Formal. Martin Henz. February 5, Propositional Logic
The Importance of Being Formal Martin Henz February 5, 2014 Propositional Logic 1 Motivation In traditional logic, terms represent sets, and therefore, propositions are limited to stating facts on sets
More informationPropositional Logic Arguments (5A) Young W. Lim 11/8/16
Propositional Logic (5A) Young W. Lim Copyright (c) 2016 Young W. Lim. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
More informationNatural Deduction for Propositional Logic
Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan September 10, 2018 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic
More informationAxiomatic systems. Revisiting the rules of inference. Example: A theorem and its proof in an abstract axiomatic system:
Axiomatic systems Revisiting the rules of inference Material for this section references College Geometry: A Discovery Approach, 2/e, David C. Kay, Addison Wesley, 2001. In particular, see section 2.1,
More informationPHIL012. SYMBOLIC LOGIC PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC DERIVATIONS
HIL012 SYMBOLIC LOGIC ROOSITIONL LOGIC DERIVTIONS When we argue, what we want are (i) clearly specifiable rules, (ii) that apply to any particular subject matter, and (iii) that legitimate transitions
More informationPhilosophy 134 Module 2 Non-Modal Sentential Logic
Philosophy 134 Module 2 Non-Modal Sentential Logic G J Mattey August 1, 2013 Contents 1 Syntax of Sentential Logic 3 11 Expressions of SL 3 12 Rules of Formation for SL 4 2 Semantics for Sentential Logic
More informationChapter 3: Propositional Calculus: Deductive Systems. September 19, 2008
Chapter 3: Propositional Calculus: Deductive Systems September 19, 2008 Outline 1 3.1 Deductive (Proof) System 2 3.2 Gentzen System G 3 3.3 Hilbert System H 4 3.4 Soundness and Completeness; Consistency
More informationSample Problems for all sections of CMSC250, Midterm 1 Fall 2014
Sample Problems for all sections of CMSC250, Midterm 1 Fall 2014 1. Translate each of the following English sentences into formal statements using the logical operators (,,,,, and ). You may also use mathematical
More informationClass 29 - November 3 Semantics for Predicate Logic
Philosophy 240: Symbolic Logic Fall 2010 Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays: 9am - 9:50am Hamilton College Russell Marcus rmarcus1@hamilton.edu Class 29 - November 3 Semantics for Predicate Logic I. Proof Theory
More informationPL: Truth Trees. Handout Truth Trees: The Setup
Handout 4 PL: Truth Trees Truth tables provide a mechanical method for determining whether a proposition, set of propositions, or argument has a particular logical property. For example, we can show that
More informationCHAPTER 11. Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic
CHAPTER 11 Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic Intuitionistic logic has developed as a result of certain philosophical views on the foundation of mathematics, known as intuitionism. Intuitionism was originated
More informationInference in Propositional Logic
Inference in Propositional Logic Deepak Kumar November 2017 Propositional Logic A language for symbolic reasoning Proposition a statement that is either True or False. E.g. Bryn Mawr College is located
More informationProseminar on Semantic Theory Fall 2013 Ling 720 Propositional Logic: Syntax and Natural Deduction 1
Propositional Logic: Syntax and Natural Deduction 1 The Plot That Will Unfold I want to provide some key historical and intellectual context to the model theoretic approach to natural language semantics,
More informationTruth-Functional Logic
Truth-Functional Logic Syntax Every atomic sentence (A, B, C, ) is a sentence and are sentences With ϕ a sentence, the negation ϕ is a sentence With ϕ and ψ sentences, the conjunction ϕ ψ is a sentence
More informationAn Introduction to Modal Logic III
An Introduction to Modal Logic III Soundness of Normal Modal Logics Marco Cerami Palacký University in Olomouc Department of Computer Science Olomouc, Czech Republic Olomouc, October 24 th 2013 Marco Cerami
More informationArtificial Intelligence. Propositional logic
Artificial Intelligence Propositional logic Propositional Logic: Syntax Syntax of propositional logic defines allowable sentences Atomic sentences consists of a single proposition symbol Each symbol stands
More informationPropositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment. p. 1/34
Propositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment p. 1/34 Reading The background reading for propositional logic is Chapter 1 of Huth/Ryan. (This will cover approximately the first three lectures.)
More information4 Derivations in the Propositional Calculus
4 Derivations in the Propositional Calculus 1. Arguments Expressed in the Propositional Calculus We have seen that we can symbolize a wide variety of statement forms using formulas of the propositional
More informationGödel s Completeness Theorem
A.Miller M571 Spring 2002 Gödel s Completeness Theorem We only consider countable languages L for first order logic with equality which have only predicate symbols and constant symbols. We regard the symbols
More informationIntroduction Logic Inference. Discrete Mathematics Andrei Bulatov
Introduction Logic Inference Discrete Mathematics Andrei Bulatov Discrete Mathematics - Logic Inference 6-2 Previous Lecture Laws of logic Expressions for implication, biconditional, exclusive or Valid
More informationProofs. Example of an axiom in this system: Given two distinct points, there is exactly one line that contains them.
Proofs A mathematical system consists of axioms, definitions and undefined terms. An axiom is assumed true. Definitions are used to create new concepts in terms of existing ones. Undefined terms are only
More informationKnowledge base (KB) = set of sentences in a formal language Declarative approach to building an agent (or other system):
Logic Knowledge-based agents Inference engine Knowledge base Domain-independent algorithms Domain-specific content Knowledge base (KB) = set of sentences in a formal language Declarative approach to building
More informationModal Sentential Logic I
Modal Sentential Logic I G J Mattey July 20, 2001 1 Syntax of MSL Modal Sentential Logic (MSL) is a formal language which is an extension of Sentential Logic (SL) All expressions of SL are expressions
More information185.A09 Advanced Mathematical Logic
185.A09 Advanced Mathematical Logic www.volny.cz/behounek/logic/teaching/mathlog13 Libor Běhounek, behounek@cs.cas.cz Lecture #1, October 15, 2013 Organizational matters Study materials will be posted
More informationPropositional Logic Arguments (5A) Young W. Lim 11/30/16
Propositional Logic (5A) Young W. Lim Copyright (c) 2016 Young W. Lim. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
More informationCOMP219: Artificial Intelligence. Lecture 19: Logic for KR
COMP219: Artificial Intelligence Lecture 19: Logic for KR 1 Overview Last time Expert Systems and Ontologies Today Logic as a knowledge representation scheme Propositional Logic Syntax Semantics Proof
More informationAutomated Reasoning Lecture 2: Propositional Logic and Natural Deduction
Automated Reasoning Lecture 2: Propositional Logic and Natural Deduction Jacques Fleuriot jdf@inf.ed.ac.uk Logic Puzzles 1. Tomorrow will be sunny or rainy. Tomorrow will not be sunny. What will the weather
More informationCOMP219: Artificial Intelligence. Lecture 19: Logic for KR
COMP219: Artificial Intelligence Lecture 19: Logic for KR 1 Overview Last time Expert Systems and Ontologies Today Logic as a knowledge representation scheme Propositional Logic Syntax Semantics Proof
More information(ÀB Ä (A Â C)) (A Ä ÀC) Á B. This is our sample argument. Formal Proofs
(ÀB Ä (A Â C)) (A Ä ÀC) Á B This is our sample argument. Formal Proofs From now on, formal proofs will be our main way to test arguments. We ll begin with easier proofs. Our initial strategy for constructing
More informationCS 512, Spring 2016, Handout 02 Natural Deduction, and Examples of Natural Deduction, in Propositional Logic
CS 512, Spring 2016, Handout 02 Natural Deduction, and Examples of Natural Deduction, in Propositional Logic Assaf Kfoury January 19, 2017 Assaf Kfoury, CS 512, Spring 2017, Handout 02 page 1 of 41 from
More informationFoundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes
Foundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes These notes form a brief summary of what has been covered during the lectures. All the definitions must be memorized and understood. Statements
More informationApplied Logic. Lecture 1 - Propositional logic. Marcin Szczuka. Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw
Applied Logic Lecture 1 - Propositional logic Marcin Szczuka Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw Monographic lecture, Spring semester 2017/2018 Marcin Szczuka (MIMUW) Applied Logic 2018
More informationDeductive Characterization of Logic
6 The Deductive Characterization of Logic 1. Derivations...2 2. Deductive Systems...3 3. Axioms in Deductive Systems...4 4. Axiomatic Systems...5 5. Validity and Entailment in the Deductive Context...6
More informationLogic for Computer Science - Week 5 Natural Deduction
Logic for Computer Science - Week 5 Natural Deduction Ștefan Ciobâcă November 30, 2017 1 An Alternative View of Implication and Double Implication So far, we have understood as a shorthand of However,
More informationChapter 1, Logic and Proofs (3) 1.6. Rules of Inference
CSI 2350, Discrete Structures Chapter 1, Logic and Proofs (3) Young-Rae Cho Associate Professor Department of Computer Science Baylor University 1.6. Rules of Inference Basic Terminology Axiom: a statement
More informationPropositional Resolution
Artificial Intelligence Propositional Resolution Marco Piastra Propositional Resolution 1] Deductive systems and automation Is problem decidible? A deductive system a la Hilbert (i.e. derivation using
More informationLecture 2. Logic Compound Statements Conditional Statements Valid & Invalid Arguments Digital Logic Circuits. Reading (Epp s textbook)
Lecture 2 Logic Compound Statements Conditional Statements Valid & Invalid Arguments Digital Logic Circuits Reading (Epp s textbook) 2.1-2.4 1 Logic Logic is a system based on statements. A statement (or
More informationLogic. Definition [1] A logic is a formal language that comes with rules for deducing the truth of one proposition from the truth of another.
Math 0413 Appendix A.0 Logic Definition [1] A logic is a formal language that comes with rules for deducing the truth of one proposition from the truth of another. This type of logic is called propositional.
More informationNotes on Inference and Deduction
Notes on Inference and Deduction Consider the following argument 1 Assumptions: If the races are fixed or the gambling houses are crooked, then the tourist trade will decline. If the tourist trade declines
More informationProofs: A General How To II. Rules of Inference. Rules of Inference Modus Ponens. Rules of Inference Addition. Rules of Inference Conjunction
Introduction I Proofs Computer Science & Engineering 235 Discrete Mathematics Christopher M. Bourke cbourke@cse.unl.edu A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It s a proof. A proof is a proof. And when
More informationThe Logic of Compound Statements cont.
The Logic of Compound Statements cont. CSE 215, Computer Science 1, Fall 2011 Stony Brook University http://www.cs.stonybrook.edu/~cse215 Refresh from last time: Logical Equivalences Commutativity of :
More informationAI Principles, Semester 2, Week 2, Lecture 5 Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic
AI Principles, Semester 2, Week 2, Lecture 5 Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic Propositional logic Logical connectives Rules for wffs Truth tables for the connectives Using Truth Tables to evaluate
More informationFormal Logic. Critical Thinking
ormal Logic Critical hinking Recap: ormal Logic If I win the lottery, then I am poor. I win the lottery. Hence, I am poor. his argument has the following abstract structure or form: If P then Q. P. Hence,
More informationMath 300 Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning Autumn 2017 Proof Templates 1
Math 300 Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning Autumn 2017 Proof Templates 1 In its most basic form, a mathematical proof is just a sequence of mathematical statements, connected to each other by strict
More informationAdvanced Topics in LP and FP
Lecture 1: Prolog and Summary of this lecture 1 Introduction to Prolog 2 3 Truth value evaluation 4 Prolog Logic programming language Introduction to Prolog Introduced in the 1970s Program = collection
More informationIntroduction: What Is Modal Logic?
Introduction: What Is Modal Logic? Strictly speaking, modal logic studies reasoning that involves the use of the expressions necessarily and possibly. The main idea is to introduce the symbols (necessarily)
More informationn logical not (negation) n logical or (disjunction) n logical and (conjunction) n logical exclusive or n logical implication (conditional)
Discrete Math Review Discrete Math Review (Rosen, Chapter 1.1 1.6) TOPICS Propositional Logic Logical Operators Truth Tables Implication Logical Equivalence Inference Rules What you should know about propositional
More informationInformal Statement Calculus
FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS Branches of Logic 1. Theory of Computations (i.e. Recursion Theory). 2. Proof Theory. 3. Model Theory. 4. Set Theory. Informal Statement Calculus STATEMENTS AND CONNECTIVES Example
More informationPropositional Logic. Spring Propositional Logic Spring / 32
Propositional Logic Spring 2016 Propositional Logic Spring 2016 1 / 32 Introduction Learning Outcomes for this Presentation Learning Outcomes... At the conclusion of this session, we will Define the elements
More informationProof strategies, or, a manual of logical style
Proof strategies, or, a manual of logical style Dr Holmes September 27, 2017 This is yet another version of the manual of logical style I have been working on for many years This semester, instead of posting
More informationPropositional Calculus - Hilbert system H Moonzoo Kim CS Dept. KAIST
Propositional Calculus - Hilbert system H Moonzoo Kim CS Dept. KAIST moonzoo@cs.kaist.ac.kr CS402 1 Review Goal of logic To check whether given a formula Á is valid To prove a given formula Á ` Á Syntactic
More informationNatural deduction for truth-functional logic
Natural deduction for truth-functional logic Phil 160 - Boston University Why natural deduction? After all, we just found this nice method of truth-tables, which can be used to determine the validity or
More informationChapter 1: The Logic of Compound Statements. January 7, 2008
Chapter 1: The Logic of Compound Statements January 7, 2008 Outline 1 1.1 Logical Form and Logical Equivalence 2 1.2 Conditional Statements 3 1.3 Valid and Invalid Arguments Central notion of deductive
More informationa. ~p : if p is T, then ~p is F, and vice versa
Lecture 10: Propositional Logic II Philosophy 130 3 & 8 November 2016 O Rourke & Gibson I. Administrative A. Group papers back to you on November 3. B. Questions? II. The Meaning of the Conditional III.
More informationFormal Logic 2. This lecture: Standard Procedure of Inferencing Normal forms Standard Deductive Proofs in Logic using Inference Rules
ormal Logic 2 HW2 Due Now & ickup HW3 handout! Last lecture ropositional Logic ropositions, Statements, Connectives, ruth table, ormula W roperties: autology, Contradiction, Validity, Satisfiability Logical
More informationGödel s Incompleteness Theorems
Seminar Report Gödel s Incompleteness Theorems Ahmet Aspir Mark Nardi 28.02.2018 Supervisor: Dr. Georg Moser Abstract Gödel s incompleteness theorems are very fundamental for mathematics and computational
More informationLogical Agents. September 14, 2004
Logical Agents September 14, 2004 The aim of AI is to develop intelligent agents that can reason about actions and their effects and about the environment, create plans to achieve a goal, execute the plans,
More informationLecture 11: Measuring the Complexity of Proofs
IAS/PCMI Summer Session 2000 Clay Mathematics Undergraduate Program Advanced Course on Computational Complexity Lecture 11: Measuring the Complexity of Proofs David Mix Barrington and Alexis Maciel July
More informationTodays programme: Propositional Logic. Program Fac. Program Specification
Todays programme: Propositional Logic Familiarity with basic terminology of logics Syntax, logical connectives Semantics: models, truth, validity, logical consequence Proof systems: deductions, deductive
More informationOverview of Logic and Computation: Notes
Overview of Logic and Computation: Notes John Slaney March 14, 2007 1 To begin at the beginning We study formal logic as a mathematical tool for reasoning and as a medium for knowledge representation The
More informationArtificial Intelligence. Propositional Logic. Copyright 2011 Dieter Fensel and Florian Fischer
Artificial Intelligence Propositional Logic Copyright 2011 Dieter Fensel and Florian Fischer 1 Where are we? # Title 1 Introduction 2 Propositional Logic 3 Predicate Logic 4 Reasoning 5 Search Methods
More informationChapter 1 Elementary Logic
2017-2018 Chapter 1 Elementary Logic The study of logic is the study of the principles and methods used in distinguishing valid arguments from those that are not valid. The aim of this chapter is to help
More informationIntermediate Logic. Natural Deduction for TFL
Intermediate Logic Lecture Two Natural Deduction for TFL Rob Trueman rob.trueman@york.ac.uk University of York The Trouble with Truth Tables Natural Deduction for TFL The Trouble with Truth Tables The
More informationCOMP 182 Algorithmic Thinking. Proofs. Luay Nakhleh Computer Science Rice University
COMP 182 Algorithmic Thinking Proofs Luay Nakhleh Computer Science Rice University 1 Reading Material Chapter 1, Section 3, 6, 7, 8 Propositional Equivalences The compound propositions p and q are called
More informationWhat are the recursion theoretic properties of a set of axioms? Understanding a paper by William Craig Armando B. Matos
What are the recursion theoretic properties of a set of axioms? Understanding a paper by William Craig Armando B. Matos armandobcm@yahoo.com February 5, 2014 Abstract This note is for personal use. It
More information